On Monday morning, delegates heard a brief report on
the draft Action Plan for the globally harmonized system (GHS) for
the classification and labeling of chemicals, and began their
deliberations on: hazard data generation and availability; acutely
toxic pesticides; capacity building assistance; and the SAICM.
Regional Groups met in the afternoon to prepare their inputs to
discussions on occupational safety and health, and the SAICM. Ad
hoc Working Groups convened in the evening to focus on: hazard
data generation; acutely toxic pesticides; and addressing the
widening gap among countries.

PLENARY

GERMANY briefed participants on the success of the
GHS workshop held the previous night, highlighting the development
of a draft GHS Action Plan, which will be presented in Plenary for
adoption. Delegates then heard presentations from the Chairs of the
FSC Working Groups established in the intersessional period, and
began discussions on several agenda items.

HAZARD DATA GENERATION AND AVAILABILITY: Gunnar
Bengtsson (Sweden) presented the decision document on Hazard Data
Generation and Availability (IFCS/FORUM-IV/ 09w), which contains
a proposal for an additional Priority for Action on the
generation and sharing of hazard information for all chemicals in
commerce and a set of proposals for concrete actions. The OECD
expressed its willingness to work on this issue. The EUROPEAN
COMMUNITY (EC) highlighted its new regulation on Registration,
Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals, which she said could
provide input to the global efforts to collect hazardous data. The
WESTERN EUROPE AND OTHERS GROUP (WEOG), CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE (CEE),
and ASIA AND THE PACIFIC Regional Groups supported the proposal in
the decision document. The AFRICAN GROUP stressed the importance of
safety data sheets containing safe waste disposal information, and
suggested that provision of hazardous data by industry become a
legal obligation. SWEDEN and GERMANY requested developing a
timetable for the proposed actions. The WHO proposed acknowledging
the relevant work of the International Programme on Chemical Safety
(IPCS). The INTERNATIONAL POPS ELIMINATION NETWORK (IPEN) expressed
concern about using the OECD List of Non-Confidential Data on
Chemicals, which, she said, does not balance the public’s right to
know with commercial interests. The PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK (PAN)
called for addressing the need to provide information on the active
ingredients of products. Delegates agreed to establish an ad hoc
Working Group on this issue.

ACUTELY TOXIC PESTICIDES: Cathleen Barnes (US)
presented on Acutely Toxic Pesticides - Initial Input on Extent
of Problem and Guidance for Risk Management (10w). She noted
that this issue is addressed in several international fora and
outlined key recommendations of the report, highlighting: the
prohibition of some acutely toxic pesticides as a risk mitigation
mechanism; expanding research on safer alternatives; disseminating
existing information; and improving reporting and health systems.
The CEE outlined the problem of under-reporting of pesticide-related
poisonings, and called for addressing long-term exposure. The GROUP
OF LATIN AMERICAN AND THE CARIBBEAN COUNTRIES (GRULAC) urged,
inter alia, a ban on the use of WHO class Ia and Ib pesticides.
WEOG asked industry to extend product stewardship. ASIA AND THE
PACIFIC proposed: surveillance and monitoring systems; support for
non-chemical methods; addressing pesticide stockpiles; and
information exchange. THAILAND questioned the scientific credibility
of CropLife International (CI), which he said understated poisonings
in Thailand by misinterpreting data. He further suggested that the
WHO reconsider its association with CI. The WHO, BRAZIL and PAN said
under-reporting and subsequent lack of data should not be used to
underestimate the problem of acute poisonings, and WHO underscored
its commitment to strengthening poison centers. CI reiterated its
commitment to improving the safe management of pesticides in
developing countries and countries with economies in transition. PAN
called for vulnerable groups’ participation in international and
national discussions, and commended proposals to restrict the
availability of acutely toxic pesticides and promote research on
alternatives. CYPRUS called for raising awareness among children,
women, and farmers. An ad hoc Working Group was established
to further consider this agenda item.

CAPACITY BUILDING ASSISTANCE: INFOCAP: Matthias
Kern (Germany) presented on the Information Exchange Network on
Capacity Building for the Sound Management of Chemicals (INFOCAP)
Progress Report (3 INF). He outlined next steps, including the
need to raise awareness and facilitate participation, promote
INFOCAP at relevant international and regional conventions, and
develop French and Spanish websites. THAILAND proposed the inclusion
of national profiles.

Review of capacity building assistance:
Referring to the Assistance for Capacity Building Report for
Forum IV (11w), Kern, speaking for Roy Hickman (Canada),
stressed that chemical safety projects should be based on national
profiles and entail multi-stakeholder participation. He said the
document recommends that countries and stakeholders, inter alia:
take advantage of driving forces, such as international
environmental agreements on chemicals; integrate chemical safety
into sustainable development policies; and enhance dialogue with
donors to ensure prioritization of chemical safety. All Regional
Groups expressed support for the document. WEOG identified the need
for data linking chemical safety and development, and highlighted
WHO’s work on the health effects of chemicals. The CEE highlighted
the lack of inter-sectoral information flows and basic knowledge on
chemical safety in the region. GRULAC noted that some countries in
the region lack national profiles, and some profiles are obsolete.
SWITZERLAND, supported by CYPRUS and the EU, proposed a decision on
integrating chemical safety into poverty reduction strategies.
SWEDEN emphasized the importance of project ownership, and SLOVENIA
called for assistance in raising public awareness. UNEP highlighted
funding opportunities through the Global Environment Facility and
advocated addressing chemical safety in Poverty Reduction Strategy
Papers. UNITAR announced two new programmes to support capacity
building. Kern said a revised document will be discussed in Plenary
on Thursday morning.

Addressing the widening gap: Rashid Bayat
Mokhtari (Iran) presented on Addressing the Widening Gap Among
Countries in Following Chemical Safety Policies (12w),
highlighting obstacles faced by many developing countries in meeting
chemical safety requirements. He stressed the need to strike a
balance between further policy development and helping countries
that have lagged behind with regard to chemical safety policies. He
proposed that Forum IV request the FSC to establish an ad hoc
Expert Group to promote systematic ways to strengthen the sound
management of chemicals in countries with implementation challenges.
WEOG supported cooperation with developing countries, including
through pilot projects. GRULAC noted that an expert group alone
cannot address all problems associated with the gap. Supporting the
formation of an Expert Group, the INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHEMICAL
ASSOCIATIONS suggested that closing the gap be a focus of the SAICM.
The ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH FUND said the proposed Expert Group should
report regularly to the FSC as well as to Forum V. UNITAR urged
countries to prepare their national profiles as a basis for
identifying challenges and gaps.

SAICM: William Sanders (US) presented on the
SAICM Forum IV Thought Starter on Gaps in the Bahia Declaration and
Priorities for Action Beyond 2000 (13w), noting that its purpose
is to stimulate discussion on identifying gaps in chemicals
management policies and their implementation. He suggested that
participants focus on children and chemical safety, occupational
health and safety, and the widening gap. The PHILIPPINES stressed
the importance of national inter-agency coordination for chemicals
management. Speaking for the AFRICAN GROUP, Senegal stressed the
need to consider financial mechanisms and technology transfer to
implement relevant agreements. MOLDOVA highlighted SAICM’s potential
role in mobilizing resources and coordinating regional activities.
Stating that different institutions and processes should contribute
according to their competencies, SWITZERLAND stressed avoiding
duplication of work. UNEP urged the Forum to focus on identifying
gaps in discussions on SAICM. Underscoring the chemicals-related
goal agreed to at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, IPEN
recommended that governments use SAICM as a tool to achieve that
goal and stressed the need for appropriate assistance to this end.

AD HOC WORKING GROUPS

HAZARD DATA AND GENERATION: Chaired by Bengtsson,
this Working Group addressed the proposals made in Plenary earlier
in the day. On the legal obligation for industry to report,
Bengtsson explained that the decision document allows for a range of
instruments, including regulatory interventions. Delegates agreed to
acknowledge relevant IPCS efforts and use "general" language
regarding the timetable for actions. Citing high costs, some
delegates opposed the proposal to translate Internet databases. On
achieving a balance between the right to know and commercial
interests, a participant suggested recommending that additional
information be made accessible "according to the need to protect
both community’s right to know and industry’s valid claims for the
protection of commercial information," while others said a reference
to the validity of confidentiality claims would be sufficient.

ACUTELY TOXIC PESTICIDES: This Working Group was
chaired by Barnes. One delegate recommended that priority be given
to Regional Group proposals. Regarding amendments to the decision
document, the Working Group decided to preliminarily include all the
inputs from Regional Groups and other participants, leaving major
disagreements in brackets. On risk mitigating mechanisms, an
industry group proposed an amendment suggesting that risk analysis
be conducted before action is undertaken. An NGO participant
expressed concern that this proposal restricts the ability of
countries to apply the precautionary principle. Participants will
reconvene on Tuesday evening to finalize the document.

ADDRESSING THE WIDENING GAP: Chairing this
Working Group, Mokhtari identified two categories of countries:
those equipped to follow chemical safety policies; and those unable
to implement or understand them. Explaining that further
international policy development will widen the gap, he proposed
requesting the FSC to establish an ad hoc Expert Group to
devise solutions to this problem. Discussing the proposal, which
includes possible elements of a system for strengthening chemicals
management in countries with an expressed need, one participant
noted that some countries lack political will and good governance,
and therefore cannot be helped at present. Another delegate said
some countries are unaware that they have a problem. Working Group
participants agreed that: the FSC will decide on the composition of
the ad hoc Expert Group; the Expert Group will set its own
rules of procedure; and the FSC will review the implementation of
the system in its regular sessions and report back to Forum V. They
also agreed to request the FSC to endorse Iranï¿½s proposal, and to
urge donor countries to provide funding.

IN THE CORRIDORS

The morning discussion was spiced up with a
provocative statement by the host country on the scientific
reliability of an industry group and the subsequent reactions the
statement engendered. A number of delegates said that todayï¿½s
interventions did not help the credibility of the industry group,
which some participants noted was already compromised following the
groupï¿½s presentation given on the previous day. Some delegates also
discussed the rapid advance of the GHS Action Plan to a formal
agenda item. While many recognize the value of a coherent approach
to identifying chemical hazards, some delegates noted the
complexities involved in its implementation, highlighting: the short
transition period to adopt appropriate measures to implement the
system; the need for technical assistance; and possible trade
implications. Participants expressed widespread support for the
proposal to address the widening gap, an issue that several
delegates identified as critical to achieving global targets and
implementing intergovernmental commitments. One developed country
has initiated support for this issue through its offer to provide
for a pilot project, but some delegates noted that it remains to be
seen whether sufficient assistance and resources to effectively
address this important issue will be forthcoming.

THINGS TO LOOK FOR TODAY

PLENARY: Delegates will gather in the ESCAP Hall
from 8:00-11:00 am to hear presentations on and discuss occupational
safety and health, and children and chemical safety. Delegates will
also consider the draft GHS Action Plan and discuss the Presidentï¿½s
Progress Report. Discussions on the SAICM will take place from
1:00-4:00 pm in the ESCAP Hall.

AD HOC WORKING GROUPS: Ad hoc
Working Groups are expected to meet in the evening to discuss:
hazard data generation; acutely toxic pesticides; and the SAICM.

This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletinï¿½
enb@iisd.org is written and edited by
Paula Barrios paula@iisd.org, Tamilla
Gaynutdinova tamilla@iisd.org,
Catherine Ganzleben, Ph.D.
catherine@iisd.org, Fiona Koza
fiona@iisd.org, and Prisna Nuengsigkapian
prisna@iisd.org. The Digital Editor
is David Fernau david@iisd.org. The
Editor is Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D.
pam@iisd.org and the Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston
James "Kimo" Goree VI kimo@iisd.org.
The Sustaining Donors of the Bulletin are the Government of the
United States of America (through the Department of State Bureau of Oceans
and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs), The Netherlands
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Government of Canada (through CIDA, DFAIT
and Environment Canada), the Swiss Agency for Environment, Forests and
Landscape (SAEFL), the United Kingdom (through the Department for
International Development - DFID and Department for Environment Food and
Rural Affairs - DEFRA), the European Commission (DG-ENV), the Danish
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Government of Germany (through the
German Federal Ministry of Environment - BMU, and the German Federal
Ministry of Development Cooperation - BMZ). General Support for the
Bulletin during 2003 is provided by the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), the Government of Australia, the Ministry of Environment
and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden, the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and Trade of New Zealand, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Norway, Swan International, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through
the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies - IGES), the Japanese
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (through the Global Industrial and
Social Progress Research Institute - GISPRI), and the Ministry for
Environment of Iceland. The opinions expressed in the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts from the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin may be used in non-commercial publications with
appropriate academic citation. For information on the Bulletin,
including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of
IISD Reporting Services at kimo@iisd.org,
+1-212-644-0217 or 212 East 47th St. #21F, New York, NY 10017, USA.